Suppr超能文献

自发性变异系列评估自动调节指数技术在易发生体位性晕厥患者中的动态脑血管自动调节作用比较

Dynamic cerebrovascular autoregulation in patients prone to postural syncope: Comparison of techniques assessing the autoregulation index from spontaneous variability series.

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic, Vascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Department of Cardiothoracic, Vascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Auton Neurosci. 2022 Jan;237:102920. doi: 10.1016/j.autneu.2021.102920. Epub 2021 Nov 18.

Abstract

Three approaches to the assessment of cerebrovascular autoregulation (CA) via the computation of the autoregulation index (ARI) from spontaneous variability of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and mean cerebral blood flow velocity (MCBFV) were applied: 1) a time domain method (TDM); 2) a nonparametric method (nonPM); 3) a parametric method (PM). Performances were tested over matched and surrogate unmatched pairs. Data were analyzed at supine resting (REST) and during the early phase of 60° head-up tilt (TILT) in 13 subjects with previous history of postural syncope (SYNC, age: 28 ± 9 yrs.; 5 males) and 13 control individuals (noSYNC, age: 27 ± 8 yrs.; 5 males). Analysis was completed by computing autonomic markers from heart period (HP) and systolic arterial pressure (SAP) variability series via spectral approach. HP and SAP spectral indexes suggested that noSYNC and SYNC groups exhibited different autonomic responses to TILT. ARI analysis indicated that: i) all methods have a sufficient statistical power to separate matched from unmatched pairs with the exception of nonPM applied to impulse response; ii) ARI estimates derived from different methods might be uncorrelated and, even when correlated, might exhibit a significant bias; iii) orthostatic stressor did not induce any evident ARI change in either noSYNC or SYNC individuals; iv) this conclusion held regardless of the method. Methods for the ARI estimation from spontaneous variability provide different ARIs but none indicate that noSYNC and SYNC subjects have different dynamic component of CA.

摘要

三种评估脑血管自动调节(CA)的方法通过计算自发变异性的自动调节指数(ARI)来评估:1)时域方法(TDM);2)非参数方法(nonPM);3)参数方法(PM)。在匹配和非匹配对中测试了性能。在 13 名有体位性晕厥病史的受试者(年龄:28±9 岁;5 名男性)和 13 名对照个体(无 SYNC,年龄:27±8 岁;5 名男性)的仰卧休息(REST)和早期 60°头高位倾斜(TILT)期间分析数据。通过光谱方法分析心率(HP)和收缩压(SAP)变异性系列中的自主神经标记。HP 和 SAP 光谱指数表明,noSYNC 和 SYNC 组对 TILT 表现出不同的自主神经反应。ARI 分析表明:i)所有方法都具有足够的统计能力来区分匹配和不匹配的对,除了应用于脉冲响应的 nonPM;ii)ARI 估计值来自不同的方法可能不相关,即使相关,也可能存在显著的偏差;iii)体位应激剂在 noSYNC 或 SYNC 个体中均未引起任何明显的 ARI 变化;iv)无论采用哪种方法,这一结论都是成立的。从自发变异性中估计 ARI 的方法提供了不同的 ARI,但没有一种方法表明 noSYNC 和 SYNC 受试者的 CA 动态成分不同。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验